As a young person, an amateur linguist and a waiter, I must take issue with Frances Cohen-Knoerdel's May 21 Word Watch contribution ("We Are Women, Hear Us Roar: We Ain't 'Guys' Indeed") as well as Eugene P. Foley's objection to the use of "guys" to include men and women ("At My Age, I Might Be Flattered To Be Among the 'Guys.' But Can You Leave My Wife Out Of It?" May 9).

I respect that Mr. Foley had the wisdom to observe that "over time, language and word usage changes" in his discussion on the shift in meaning of the phrase "you guys," a change particularly apparent in the restaurant service industry: How is everything for you guys tonight? What could once only be applied to men can now be applied to a group of either gender.

But while Mr. Foley merely finds this practice "irksome," Ms. Cohen-Knoerdel finds it "demeaning," proposing that small placards be made for display in front of women at restaurant tables reading "I Am Not a Guy. I Am a Lady."

There is a difference, however, between being demeaning and simply using the language that one has learned. Most waiters nowadays are in their teens or 20s. By the time they were born, the phrase "you guys" had already taken its place in the English language as "simply the unmarked plural of 'you,' " as the linguistics professor George Jochnowitz remarked in 1983.

American English, lacking a differentiation between the singular and plural "you," has recently adopted "you guys" as a plural, in much the same way that the American South uses "y'all." Hence, "you guys" has completely shed its male connotation, as most up-to-date dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and American Heritage, acknowledge. To hold young men and women to a standard of English that became obsolete years before they were born is simply invalid.

The force of an ever-changing language is a powerful foe. I find it more prudent to simply accept its semantic shifts rather than trying to unravel them using miniature easel signs, which is a bit like trying to stop an avalanche with a picket fence. Especially in this particular case, where the avalanche has already passed.

-- DAN CONWAY, Mt. Lebanon

With all due respect to the individuals who have written to "Word Watch" regarding the universal use of the term "guys" to include all members of a group, regardless of gender, I feel that I must weigh in. I really do not mind being "one of the guys."

I am one of the last of the baby-boomer generation who has faced gender equality issues for most of my not-quite-50 years.

In 1978, my junior year as a marketing major at Penn State, I was in the first pledge class that "allowed" coeds into the business fraternity Alpha Kappa Psi. Imagine the feeling of those coeds before me who were denied the opportunity to join an organization related to their academic and career pursuits because they were female.

In my 20s, I was part of a class-action suit against Joseph Horne's parent company for inequity in salary based on gender in entry-level retail management. I recall that my portion of the settlement for two years of underpaid employment was something less than $100. I am sure the lawyers got much more.

After earning my M.B.A. at the University of Pittsburgh in 1984, I moved to the Midwest (OK, it was Dayton, Ohio, but the mentality was definitely not East Coast) to pursue my career. I was the first salaried female employee in my division. I was shunned by a portion of my male peers because I was "taking a job from a man who needed to support a family."

Fortunately, my boss did not share that mind-set. He invariably referred to me as "one of the guys."

His attitude enabled me to be accepted at face value. I earned respect through solid performance over time. But had he not squashed initial reactions to having a female on his staff, I would not have been perceived as "one of the guys" and treated as such.

To this day, I thank him for perceiving me as a "guy."

To me, being referred to as a "guy" or "one of the guys" means that I am held in the same regard as any males who happen to be present. I take no offense and assume no disrespect from the reference. I fought long and hard to be acknowledged as "one of the guys" in my career.

If this once masculine-only term is spilling over into social or casual public settings and implies that the person speaking perceives no differences in the referenced individuals, I say, "Let's score one for gender equality."

Given the choice, I would rather that wait staff in casual restaurants referred to me as a "guy" and not as a "doll."

-- SUSAN RUGLOVSKY FLYNN, South Fayette

Guys' is a unisex phrase. I'm very sorry, Frances Cohen-Knoerdel, that you don't like it, but the world is not going to change it to please the very few people actually bothered by it. For crying out loud, I'm not bothered when my fiancee and I hear "Hello, ladies!" when we go out to eat (I have longer hair).

What would be good for you? "Welcome to Friday's, homo sapiens"? "Human beings"? The waiter/waitress is just trying to be pleasant. Relax. If something that minor eats at your nerves, maybe you would be better off staying home all of the time.

As a heads-up, from someone who has worked in retail: You're the kind of customer all of the employees (including managers) make fun of the rest of the day. Whenever you go out of your way to make the server correct themselves, and go on to complain to the manager, you're just ruining someone's day and/or making a funny story for them to tell.

-- STEVE RUDZINSKI, Bridgeville